Main Question or Discussion Point
Is there evidence of space surrounding the BB singularity?
The difficulty with this question is that in professional science one does not assume that the real universe ever contained a singularity.At the BB did our universe include anything other than the singularity?
I certainly agree that it could have. I should emphasize that I'm just a cosmology watcher from the sidelines. I love the subject and follow parts of the research literature, but don't speak with any authority. I think (or hope) that over the course of the next few years we will have some LOWER BOUND estimates of the size of the overall universe, based on measurements of the average curvature (which is very nearly zero but might turn out to be slightly positive.)... It seems to me that this universe might have started out infinitely large or at least extremely large.
I basically an amateur also, as a retired guy who has been avidly interested in the stuff for around 10 years, not an expert or authority."at very high energy densities (approx uniform throughout space), quantum corrections can even make gravity repel".
Sorry to focus here on one small part of all that you said.
Anyhow, are you saying that these quantum corrections may have taken place at the start of the BB. (I hope I didn't miss your point here. I'm just an amateur.
No Marcus. That is not correct. You speak with great authority. This is a science forum after all and in science we seek the truth and try to avoid letting petty human emotions get in the way.I certainly agree that it could have. I love the subject and follow parts of the research literature, but don't speak with any authority.
It is with great reluctance then that I disagree with you and by association I suppose most of the Cosmology community. I do not believe, on dynamic grounds and all that I see around me in Nature, that before the Big Bang there was necessarily a classical universe like ours in basic physics.The model says that there was a classical universe AFAWK like ours in its basic physics, that collapsed in a crunch and instead of a "singularity" when it reached an extremely high density like 1% of planck the quantum effects began being felt and slowed down the contraction, and at some point like 40% planck density it turned around and rebounded.
It's fine to disagree! And simply not believing what that particular MODEL says does not put you in opposition to "most of the Cosmology community"....
It is with great reluctance then that I disagree with you and by association I suppose most of the Cosmology community. I do not believe, on dynamic grounds and all that I see around me in Nature, that before the Big Bang there was necessarily a classical universe like ours in basic physics.
Thanks for the friendly words--I'm sure you're not dead serious. But suppose we were to ask that Who is? question literally, and let people answer.Marcus,
If you're not an authority on cosmology, WHO IS?
I think marcus is showing humility and, may I say, wisdom - which I think are very good traits for those who are interested in science and/or active scientists. And I would like to take the opportunity to quote Carl Sagan, if I may:If you're not an authority on cosmology, WHO IS?
(from the so-called Baloney Detection Kit, based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark")Carl Sagan said:"Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."